The hon. member for St. Albert—Edmonton in rising on a question of privilege.

Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a question of privilege from the 63rd report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, which was tabled earlier today. While the main thrust of the report concerned the prima facie contempt, which the House referred to the committee last year related to foreign interference directed toward the hon. member for Wellington—Halton Hills and other colleagues, it is my view that the report lays out grounds for finding a new prima facie contempt. Namely, that the Minister of National Defence provided misleading evidence to the committee and misleading comments in the House. I should first offer some context. After the House agreed, on May 10, 2023, to refer to the committee that question of privilege, which was sparked by a report in The Globe and Mail based on a July 2021 intelligence assessment, it came to light, through special rapporteur David Johnston's subsequently published report that: In addition to the memorandum in question, CSIS sent an issues management note (IMU) to the then Minister of Public Safety, his Chief of Staff, and his Deputy Minister in May 2021, noting that there was intelligence that the PRC intended to target [the member for Wellington—Halton Hills], another MP, and their family in China (if any). As the Speaker will recall, having been a member of the procedure and House affairs committee at the time, this led to new areas of important questions for our witnesses and especially for the public safety minister. In the portion of the 63rd report summarizing the minister's appearances before the committee, we may read that the minister “understands that CSIS authorized the IMU to be shown to him, but he never received it.” The associated footnote in the committee's report points to the minister's statement responding to one of my questions, which is found at page 22 of the committee evidence for June 1, 2023. It reads: It was authorized by CSIS to be shown to me, but they determined.... The director determined that this was not information the minister needed to know, so I was never notified of the existence of that intelligence, nor was it ever shared with me. On the following page, one may read his further statements. When pressed about ministerial responsibility, he said: This is a situation where it's an operational decision of CSIS as to what information needs to be passed along to government. In this case, they made an operational decision that this was not required. Two years later, when it was leaked to the press, that information was subsequently shared with me. At the time, I had no knowledge that it existed. I had no knowledge that it was not being shared with me, because I wasn't aware that the information was available. CSIS, quite appropriately, made a determination that they didn't believe it was necessary to pass that information along. The minister's version of events was soon contradicted. Elsewhere in the 63rd report, in the portion summarizing the testimony of CSIS director David Vigneault, we read that he: ...told the Committee that in May 2021 an IMU was sent from CSIS to the Minister of Public Safety...warning that [the member for Wellington—Halton Hills] and his family were being targeted by the PRC. The IMU included a specific directive that it be forwarded to the Minister. The purpose of the IMU was to highlight the information and bring it to the Minister’s attention. When asked whether the information contained in the May 2021 IMU was information that [the minister] did not need to know, Mr. Vigneault stated that “the fact that we did an issue management note speaks to the notion that we wanted to highlight the information” to [the minister]. The associated footnote directs the reader to the following comments by Mr. Vigneault, at page 4 of the evidence from the committee's evening meeting for June 13, 2023, in response to my questions: It's also important that when we see we have something of high importance...we have instituted this process called an “information management note”. That would be shared to bring attention to something more specifically. That was the purpose of this note. It was to bring it to the attention of the people to whom it was destined to go. Another footnote points to the following answer, at page 7 of the evidence, in response to a question from the hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable: “As I mentioned a little earlier, CSIS and I conveyed the information to the Department of Public Safety along with the very specific directive to forward it to the minister... it's important for the committee to understand that we shared the intelligence and the briefing note.” In spite of this, the minister doubled down on his position. During question period on June 14, 2023, the day following Mr. Vigneault's committee appearance, in response to a question from his coalition partner, the hon. member for Burnaby South, the minister said, at page 15981 of the Debates, “Mr. Vigneault did not send his note to me”. Suffice to say there was no “operational decision” that was “appropriately made”, or otherwise, by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service to keep the minister of public safety in the dark about a serious matter of national security, namely the threats from a foreign government directed toward a senior, long-serving member of the House of Commons. However, this analysis does not rely exclusively on the evidence of Mr. Vigneault. According to the 63rd report, the minister's then deputy minister, Rob Stewart, did not recall an operational decision not to inform the minister about the IMU. More pointedly, the IMU in question has been released by CSIS under the Access to Information Act and was subsequently tabled by Conservatives at the procedure and House affairs committee. The committee has made reference to its possession of the IMU in the following comment at footnote 98 of the 63rd report: “The Committee notes that, in documents that it received, the May 2021 CSIS IMU was sent to [the minister], his Chief of Staff, and his Deputy Minister”. A copy of the publicly released version of the IMU has, for good measure, been annexed to the Conservatives' supplemental opinions in the 63rd report, so that the House is seized with a copy of it. While the document is heavily redacted, it is still plain to see on its face, in two separate locations: “Distribution...confined exclusively to: DM Public Safety, Minister Public Safety, MIN PS CoS, NSIA.” Recall that the minister said here on the floor of the House that the note was not sent to him. The facts are clear: The Minister of National Defence misled the procedure and House affairs committee, and he misled the House. Page 82 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, notes among established grounds of contempt, “deliberately attempting to mislead the House or a committee (by way of statement, evidence, or petition)”. Similar comments can be found on pages 153 and 1,081, for example. As explained in numerous Speaker's rulings, to establish a prima facie contempt in respect of deliberately misleading statements three, elements must be made out. First, it must be proven that the statement in question was misleading. Second, it must be established that the person making the statement knew at the time that it was misleading. Third, in making the statement, it must be established that the statement was offered with the intention to mislead. It is clear from the evidence I have cited that the statement was misleading. As for the other two elements of that test, the correct analysis is the following one. On its face, the minister's testimony is, frankly, absurd. Why would CSIS issue an IMU to the minister on intelligence about which an operational decision had been made to not share it with him? This defies common sense and lacks all credibility. After the minister was caught out on this deception, he appeared before the committee a second time, on October 24, 2023, and offered this weak explanation: “I assumed that if the director did not share information with me, then he didn't require that I see it.” Without more, we are not satisfied with the minister's explanation. Not only was the minister's assumption incorrect. It was, I would submit, a faulty one, too. Certainly, the minister was in no place to speak so authoritatively or with such conviction that CSIS had “made an operational decision” to keep him in the dark. The minister used very specific words. He was unequivocal in his words. Moreover, the minister made the claim repeatedly. Taken together, it is evident his choice of clear, convincing and unequivocal wording was deliberate. He showed no hesitation, and he did not shade his words with doubt or otherwise represent that he was speaking on the basis of an assumption. Put simply, he did not misspeak. He actively misled the procedure and House affairs committee, and he actively misled this House. Speaker Milliken stated, on February 1, 2002, at page 8581 of the Debates: The authorities are consistent about the need for clarity in our proceedings and about the need to ensure the integrity of the information provided by the government to the House. The integrity of information here, too, is in doubt. To this, it is worth adding the words of one of your predecessors, Mr. Speaker, from a ruling delivered March 3, 2014, at page 3430 of the Debates: This incident highlights the primordial importance of accuracy and truthfulness in our deliberations. All members bear a responsibility, individually and collectively, to select the words they use very carefully and to be ever mindful of the serious consequences that can result when this responsibility is forgotten. What is serious here is that these exchanges at committee appear to have been meant to deflect from the shocking fact that the minister of public safety, as he was, through his own inaction and omission, was unaware of intelligence concerning the targeting of a senior long-serving member of Parliament by a hostile foreign state, intelligence that CSIS had specifically sent to him as a matter of high importance. This constituted a serious breakdown in the flow of information and intelligence under the minister's watch. As the minister, he bore responsibility for this breakdown. Instead of accepting responsibility, the minister deflected blame to the director of CSIS for a supposed “operational decision” that had been made to keep him in the dark. The minister had to have known that no such “operational decision” had been made, yet he said so anyway. The minister had a duty to be truthful in his testimony to the committee. He was not truthful. He misled the committee in a self-serving attempt to evade accountability for a massive failure that occurred under his watch as minister of public safety. Misleading a parliamentary committee is a serious matter. Indeed, it can be a contempt of Parliament. That it was a minister of the Crown who did so makes this even more grave. It simply cannot be overlooked. Indeed, as Speaker Milliken ruled, on November 6, 2003, at page 9229 of the Debates: However tempting the invitation, the Speaker cannot presume to articulate the expectations that committees have of the witnesses who come before them. Suffice it to say that I believe all hon. members will agree with me when I say simply that committees of the House and, by extension, the House of Commons itself, must be able to depend on the testimony they receive, whether from public officials or private citizens. This testimony must be truthful and complete. When this proves not to be the case, a grave situation results, a situation that cannot be treated lightly. On February 1, 2002, after concerns about the statements of another Liberal minister of national defence, Speaker Milliken found a prima facie case of privilege, commenting, at page 8582 of the Debates: ...I have concluded that the situation before us where the House is left with two versions of events is one that merits further consideration by an appropriate committee, if only to clear the air. Similarly, your predecessor ruled, on March 3, 2014, at page 3431 of the Debates, that a prima facie case of privilege existed: ...the fact remains that the House continues to be seized of completely contradictory statements. This is a difficult position in which to leave members, who must be able to depend on the integrity of the information with which they are provided to perform their parliamentary duties. Accordingly, in keeping with the precedent cited earlier in which Speaker Milliken indicated that the matter merited “...further consideration by an appropriate committee, if only to clear the air”, I am prepared in this case for the same reason to allow the matter to be put to the House. In the present case, the House, again, is possessed of two versions of events by virtue of the 63rd report. Before concluding, I should note that while the statements of concern were made last spring, the matter is actually being raised in the House at the earliest opportunity. I would refer the Chair, in that regard, to Speaker Milliken's February 10, 2011, ruling on page 8030 of the Debates: The parliamentary secretary to the government House leader was not mistaken in his assertion that any and all statements made in committee, even when those have been repeated verbatim in the House, remain the business of the committee until such time as it elects to report them officially to the House. This is a long-standing practice.... Furthermore, while a copy of an internal CIDA document obtained through an access to information request was provided to me, it was not tabled in the House and, thus, is not officially before it.... Speaker Milliken continued: It may sound overly technical but the reality is that when adjudicating cases of this kind, the Chair is obliged to reference material fully and properly before the House. With regard to statements made by the minister, this material is limited to a few answers to oral questions and one answer to a written question, not to any comments in committee. A week following that ruling, the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade presented its sixth report, which referred to the committee testimony in question as well as provided a copy of the document obtained through the access to information process. On the strength of this information with which the House had become seized, Mr. Speaker Milliken found a prima facie case of privilege on March 9, 2011, at page 8842 of the Debates. The same circumstances prevail here with the 63rd report now placing properly before the House the necessary evidence to make out the relevant tests for the question of privilege I am raising. Should the Speaker agree with me that the air again needs to be cleared because the current Minister of National Defence appears to have committed a contempt by deliberately misleading the procedure and house affairs committee, I am prepared to move the appropriate motion to task that committee with assessing this specific problem and reporting its views back to the House.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take the time to digest what the member just said and reserve the right to return to the House tomorrow on this.

Mr. Speaker, on this particular point, we too will return. However, while I have the floor, after discussions with you and others in the chamber, I am hoping to get unanimous consent to go back so that I can answer some Order Paper questions and motions for the production of papers.

Is it agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today. Question Nos. 2357, 2361 and 2363.

With regard to Indigenous Services Canada's 2023-24 Departmental Plan: (a) what indicators does the department use to measure the mental health and well-being of First Nations, Métis and Inuit communities; (b) do the indicators used by the department show that the mental health and well-being of First Nations, Métis and Inuit communities will improve by 2024-25; (c) does the Minister of Indigenous Services believe that the department can achieve its mental health targets by March 2028 with the sunsetting of funding for mental health and wellness at the end of 2023-24; (d) what is the total number of (i) full-time equivalent, (ii) part-time equivalent, employees who will be affected by the sunsetting of mental health and wellness funding; and (e) what are the details of all programs and services that will be reduced or eliminated as a result of the sunsetting of funding for mental health and wellbeing? With regard to the government's commitment to plant 2 billion trees: (a) which organizations have received funding as part of the tree planting program; (b) for each organization in (a), how much funding has it received to date, broken down by year in which the funding was received; (c) for each organization in (a), how many trees was it expected to plant with the funding provided to date; and (d) how many of the trees in (c) have been planted to date? With regard to government funding for highway or road projects: (a) what are the details of all proposals or requests for funding related to highways or roads which the government has received but for which the funding has not yet been either formally approved or denied, including, for each, the (i) date on which the government received the proposal or request, (ii) amount of federal government funding requested, (iii) entity that submitted the request, (iv) summary of the proposal or request, including geographic location and road or highway numbers, if known, (v) current status of the application, (vi) expected timeline for when the government will provide a response; and (b) what are the details of any highway or road projects which are currently proposed or in progress and which are subject to, and waiting on, a federal environmental review, including, for each, the (i) name and description of the project, (ii) geographic location and highway or road numbers, if known, (iii) date on which the environmental review began, (iv) expected completion date of the environmental review, (v) current status of the project, including details of what has been completed to date, (vi) total amount of federal funding committed to the project, (vii) amount of government funding on hold pending the completion of the review?

Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

With regard to all federal contracts awarded between 2019 and 2023 to suppliers of the federal government, reporting departments, organizations and agencies, federal offices and any other federal entity that received funds from the Public Accounts of Canada: (a) which contracts required essential knowledge of the English language, both with respect to the spoken or written language of suppliers in the workplace and the language of deliverables; and (b) what are the details of each contract in (a), including the (i) contract number, (ii) name of the supplier, (iii) name of the federal department or agency responsible for the contract, (iv) amount awarded, (v) date of the contract, (vi) languages required for the work, (vii) languages required for deliverables, (viii) justification for requiring only English as the language of work or deliverables? With regard to all federal funding committed to the creation and maintenance of housing stock in Nunavut, broken down by fiscal year since 2015-16: (a) what is the total amount committed; (b) what is the total amount spent; (c) how much new housing stock was created in Nunavut; and (d) what are the government's projections for the number of housing units that will be built in Nunavut by 2030? With regard to the Cadets and Junior Canadian Rangers youth programs, in the 2022-23 fiscal year: (a) how many staff, broken down by employment status (i.e. full-time, part-time), were employed at the (i) Regional Headquarters, including the Northwest Region, Pacific Region, Central Region, Eastern Region, Atlantic Region, (ii) National Headquarters, (iii) Corps/Squadron level; (b) of the staff in (a), what were their roles, responsibilities, and job descriptions; (c) what was the salary range of those in (a)(i) and (a)(ii); (d) what professional and special services were used, how often, and for what purpose, and how much did each of these items cost; (e) how much money was spent on advertising by the (i) National Headquarters, (ii) Northwest Region, (iii) Pacific Region, (iv) Central Region, (v) Eastern Region, (vi) Atlantic Region; and (f) what is the breakdown of (e) by type or platform of advertising (e.g. Meta, Google, local television, local newspapers), how much money was spent exclusively on recruitment efforts, and what did those efforts include? With regard to the federal public service, broken down by year since 2015: (a) how many public servants are employed in each department, agency, Crown corporation, or other government entity; (b) what is the breakdown of the employees in (a) by (i) branch of each department, agency, Crown corporation, or other government entity, (ii) directorate in each branch; (c) what is the breakdown of the employees in (a) and (b) by level (i.e. at the executive level or higher, below the executive level); and (d) what is the breakdown of employees in (a) through (c) by employment status (i.e. full-time, part-time)? With regard to government programs that provide funding for roads and highways, including both regular and non-traditional highways or roads, such as those in northern or remote areas: what are the details of all funding agreements that are currently in place, including, for each, the (i) amount of federal funding, (ii) type of agreement, (iii) partners of the agreement, (iv) cost-sharing arrangement, (v) name of the agreement, (vi) program under which the funding is provided, (vii) project description, (viii) specific geographic location of the roads receiving the funding, including highway or road numbers, if applicable? With regard to contracts awarded since the 2009-10 fiscal year, broken down by fiscal year: what is the total value of contracts awarded to (i) McKinsey & Company, (ii) Deloitte, (iii) PricewaterhouseCoopers, (iv) Accenture, (v) KPMG, (vi) Ernst and Young, (vii) GC Strategies, (viii) Coredal Systems Consulting Inc., (ix) Dalian Enterprises Inc., (x) Coradix Technology Consulting Ltd, (xi) Dalian and Coradix in joint venture? With regard to Health Canada’s approval of the COVID-19 modRNA vaccines (modified with N1-methylpseudouridine) for pregnant women: (a) what specific research data supported the claims that (i) this product may be safely administered at any stage of pregnancy, (ii) this product protects pregnant women from SARS-CoV-2 infection and severe disease, (iii) the vaccinated mother is less likely to transmit SARS-CoV-2 to her newborn after delivery compared to an unvaccinated mother, (iv) the modRNA vaccine, and consequently the spike protein, do not excrete into breast milk, (v) the modRNA, and consequently the spike protein, do not cross the placental barrier, (vi) all modRNA is destroyed in the human body within about two days, (vii) there is no possibility that the modRNA vaccine contents will enter the cell nucleus and modify the human genome; (b) with respect to the claims in (a), has Heath Canada modified these claims based on updated scientific research, and if so, which claims and how; (c) what is the real-world data indicating that this product presents no safety concerns for the pregnant woman or the developing fetus or newborn; (d) what is the quantitative threshold for a concerning safety signal for these cohorts; (e) how has the monograph for the COVID-19 modRNA vaccines been updated in relation to pregnancy and lactation to convey this safety research data; and (f) when were these updates made? With regard to Health Canada’s (HC) approval of mRNA vaccines for pregnant and lactating women, and children, youth, and adults of reproductive age: (a) what is the cause of the reported menstrual irregularities in vaccinated women; (b) what is the safety data on any single exposure and repeated exposure to lipid nanoparticles (LNP) for (i) pregnant women, (ii) unborn fetuses; (c) do LNPs, spike protein encoding mRNA, or spike protein pass through the placenta; (d) if the answer to (c) is affirmative, does this present a safety concern to the unborn fetus, and how was this determined; (e) where are LNPs, mRNA, or spike protein distributed in the fetus; (f) what are the potential genetic effects of the COVID-19 vaccine with respect to the epigenetic effects on germ cells; (g) what are the specific references confirming that mRNA is not integrated into the genome or genetic material of the oocyte or the sperm; (h) how, and for how long, does HC actively monitor or plan to actively monitor the impact of the dose-dependent effect of the vaccine on future fertility in (i) vaccinated women and men of child-bearing age, (ii) vaccinated children, (iii) children exposed in utero to the COVID-19 vaccines following maternal injection; (i) does HC actively monitor or plan to actively monitor the adverse effects of the mRNA vaccination, and for how long, in the (i) pregnant mother, (ii) fetus; (j) if the answer to (i) is affirmative, does this or will this include miscarriages, uterine deaths, possible illnesses and birth malformations; (k) with respect to studies analyzing various components and products of COVID-19 vaccination, including spike protein, what have been the findings comparing placental tissue and breast milk from vaccinated and non-vaccinated mothers, and what are the specific references; (l) based on available research and real-world data, what updated written guidance has HC provided to provinces and territories regarding information which is given to pregnant women prior to and after vaccination, their doctors (neonatal doctors, paediatricians, fertility doctors, obstetricians), other medical staff (including midwives), and vaccinators with respect to (i) the potential adverse events to monitor post-injection, (ii) their duty to report adverse events and where; and (m) does the guidance in (l) include the updated mRNA vaccine monographs and where to find them? With regard to Bill C-61, An Act respecting water, source water, drinking water, wastewater and related infrastructure on First Nations land, since December 7, 2022: (a) what are the details of all consultations for the purposes of this legislation, including the (i) date of consultation, (ii) name of the First Nations rights-holder or organization consulted, (iii) details of the feedback received; (b) how many engagements did the government receive (i) through the mail, (ii) by phone, (iii) by email; (c) did the government receive any requests to extend the consultation period; and (d) what changes were made to the draft proposal sent to First Nations rights-holders and organizations on February 17, 2023, that were reflected in the version of Bill C-61 that was introduced and read the first time on December 11, 2023? With regard to penitentiary farm and agriculture and agri-food operations at the Joyceville Institution and the Collins Bay Institution: (a) what funds have been spent on Public Services and Procurement Canada fees and disbursements and professional project management services, including, but not limited to, concept design, project leaders, tender packages, geo-technology, hydrogeology, engineering, and architectural consultants, broken down by fiscal year since 2018; (b) what funds have been spent on feasibility studies, public consultations, online consultations, and contracts with Goss Gilroy and Monachus Consulting during the feasibility and consultation phase of the penitentiary farm project, between January 1, 2016 and December 31, 2018; (c) prior to the reinstatement of the penitentiary farm program, what revenues were earned by Correctional Service Canada from rental agreements for the penitentiary farmland at the Collins Bay Institution and the Joyceville Institution, broken down by year for each year from 2013 to 2018; (d) of the revenues earned from penitentiary agriculture programming since 2018, what is the breakdown by source and year; (e) how many offenders are currently employed in penitentiary agriculture programming, broken down by location; and (f) of the offenders who have been employed in penitentiary agriculture programming since it was reintroduced in 2018, how many have been released, and, of those released, how many obtained jobs in the agriculture sector? With regard to funding for research at universities and associated organizations: (a) what amount of funding, in Canadian dollars, is provided directly by the various federal government departments; (b) what amount of funding, in Canadian dollars, does not come from the granting agencies, used to fund research projects (i) in universities, (ii) in research organizations affiliated with universities, (iii) by researchers affiliated with a university, (iv) in total; and (c) what is the distribution of this amount in (a) and (b) between (i) U15 universities, (ii) small and medium-sized universities? With regard to funding for research at universities and associated organizations: (a) what is the amount of funding, in Canadian dollars, that is provided directly by the granting agencies and is used to fund research projects (i) in universities, (ii) in research organizations affiliated with universities, (iii) by researchers affiliated with a university, (iv) in total; and (b) what is the distribution of this amount between (i) U15 universities, (ii) small and medium-sized universities?

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand.

Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all motions for the production of papers also be allowed to stand at this time.

Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed. The Deputy Speaker: It being 6:14 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

The hon. member for Kenora is not present to move the item as announced on today's Notice Paper. Accordingly, the item will be dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

Mr. Speaker, just this morning, my office was in communication with a local food bank, which confirmed that food bank use continues to go up. Barrhead and District Family and Community Support Services, in a town of fewer than 5,000 people, saw 184 new families using the food bank in 2023. This was a dramatic increase from 2022. It has seen seniors who are embarrassed to come and use a food bank for the first time. The Westlock & District Food Bank has already added 140 families just this year, for an increase of 30%. The Salvation Army food bank in Peace River has seen a 30% increase since 2021 and is adding an average of two families per week. Most people who are starting to come to these food banks are young families. After paying for their utilities, gas and rent, they cannot afford to put food on the table. This is because, when we tax the farmer who grows the food, tax the trucker who delivers the food and tax the person who sells the food, Canadians cannot afford to buy food. Very soon, a farmer with a 5,000-acre farm in Canada will be paying $150,000 a year in carbon tax. The carbon tax is stopping Canadians from being able to afford to live. Back in December, I asked the government House leader whether the Prime Minister would put aside his ideological position on the carbon tax and remove it for all family farms across the nation. Here we are, four months later, and the government continues to be relentless in its pursuit of making life more unaffordable for Canadians. Instead of putting a spike in the hike on April 1, the Prime Minister has chosen to increase the carbon tax yet again by 23%. It is no surprise when we see large numbers of people protesting. Farmers and families are angry and frustrated with the government, and 70% of Canadians and 70% of premiers have called on the Prime Minister, but he has refused to listen. When asked why he will not meet with the premiers, he said that he had already met with them back in 2016, eight years ago. In very few of those provinces, if any, is the same person still premier. Whether it is the trucker who opposes the Prime Minister's radical mandates or the farmer who opposes his radical carbon tax, the Prime Minister has shown Canadians his true colours. He cares more about advancing his radical ideology than he does for the Canadians he is supposed to represent. Common-sense Conservatives understand how hard it is for Canadians to survive in Canada, whether they are hard-working farmers, young families or seniors. We have stood with the farmers by putting forward Bill C-234 to give farmers relief from the carbon tax, so they can help put affordable food on Canadian tables. We stand for the families who are trying to feed their children, fill their car with gas and pay their rent. We have taken every opportunity to get the government to axe the tax, voting non-confidence in it 135 times and voting against the Liberal budget. Provided that it continues to support a carbon tax, we will continue to vote non-confidence in the government. Conservatives will not stop fighting for Canadians. Again, I want a clear answer for all Canadians: When will the government stand up, remove the carbon tax from farmers and rural families, and axe the tax for all Canadians so life can be affordable in Canada once again?

Mr. Speaker, I am glad that for the first time, and for as long as I have been paying attention to federal politics, Conservatives are talking about poverty elimination. It is good that we are actually looking at strategies to help people with their bills. While the member was talking, I went on the Food Banks Canada website. They have provided an Alberta checkpoint. It is like a report card, which they have provided, with policy recommendations, a whole bunch of rankings and letter grades for various things. I read all of the policy recommendations. I have met with Food Banks Canada. I meet with all of the poverty elimination and food security experts across the country on a frequent basis because poverty elimination is a top concern for my government, our government and for me personally. I grew up in community housing, and I believe that poverty is something that we can tackle together. None of the policy recommendations from the Alberta report card on the Food Banks Canada website mention the price on pollution. It does not mention the carbon tax because pollution pricing does not contribute to the financial difficulties that Canadians are experiencing. That is something that has been repeated over and over again by over 200 economists in Canada. They wrote a letter, which basically called out Conservative misinformation and the criticisms that the party has put forth over the last two years, since the member for Carleton has been the leader of the Conservative Party. I have said this a number of times in the House. All of those Conservative members ran on a price on pollution that was very similar to ours, except instead of getting rebates, such as the Canada carbon rebate, it would have been deposited into some type of loyalty account that they could use to spend on specific items. A lot of people called the proposal, “the more you burn, the more you earn”. It was widely refuted by environmental organizations and groups as a half measure in lowering our emissions. The price on pollution sends money back to eight out of 10 Canadian families, and that includes Albertans. The report card on poverty reduction from Food Banks Canada, specifically under its Alberta section, lists all of the things that the Alberta government could be doing. It calls out, as a contributing factor, the Alberta government for changing the previous NDP policy on the Alberta child benefit. The Alberta government has not adequately kept up with inflation with respect to minimum wage. It has not built any affordable housing. The report card makes some very good recommendations on things such as better basic income programs, similar to the Canada child benefit, which we modernized and made tax-free. We are continually being told by the Conservatives, as the only party in the House of Commons saying this, that the price on pollution in Canada is what is causing the financial difficulties Canadians are facing. This is absolutely false. It is not true. These Conservatives can repeat their slogans all they want. When hundreds of Canadian Ph.D.s and economists write a letter to say that it is nonsense, that it is garbage and they should stop saying it because it is untrue, I wish the Conservatives would take heed. Now, it is important to recognize why the Conservatives are on this campaign. It is clear now. It is actually a cover-up campaign. It is because the Premier of Alberta, Danielle Smith, on April 1 increased the price of gas in the province of Alberta by 4¢. This is the exact same day that the price on pollution went up a little bit, and the Canada carbon rebate went up to accommodate that. She increased it by more than the price on pollution. It seems that the Conservative members, particularly those from Alberta, would like to cover that up and hide it from public knowledge. The Canadian Taxpayers Federation called them out and said that, if they are going to throw stones, to get out of their glass house. The Conservatives from Saskatchewan are in the exact same situation. Both of those premiers have done nothing for affordability in those provinces.

Mr. Speaker, I was listening to the member across the way. He must live in some alternate reality. Alberta is one of the most affordable provinces to live in this whole country. Housing is relatively affordable in Alberta, compared to the rest of the country. No matter what he says, affordability is less of an issue in Alberta, particularly when it comes to housing. Most of my question was about food costs. We know that, no matter what the minister says, Canadians are seeing the impacts of the carbon tax on their food budget. The price of groceries is up significantly. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has confirmed what Conservatives have been saying the whole time. Canadians are worse off because of the carbon tax. We need a government to take leadership seriously when it comes to helping Canadians and doing what is best for them, for the future, and the prosperity of this nation. The government is well beyond its expiry date. Canadians have seen through the smoke and mirrors of the Liberal government and are ready to vote in a majority Conservative government that would axe the tax. We would bring home affordable housing, axe the tax, and bring it home.

Mr. Speaker, once again I want to stress that pricing pollution does not cause financial stress. In fact, the Canada carbon rebate sends more money back, particularly to those families who are experiencing food insecurity and poverty. However, since the member opposite wanted to use food banks as an example, I would like to read the policy recommendations for Alberta food banks from Food Banks Canada. Under recommendations on “Accountability”, it reads: Introduce a provincial poverty reduction strategy While Alberta made significant headway in the reduction of child poverty between 2015 and 2020...thanks to...the federal Canada Child Benefit, the lack of a comprehensive plan with clear goals and indicators stymies the ability of government and stakeholders to work together with a common vision. The second section is “Affordable Housing”. Despite what the member opposite just said, housing is expensive in Alberta. The report goes on to say, “Dedicate 0.5% of the provincial budget every year to affordable rental housing construction”. This is something they have not done. The next section is “Adequate Income Support”, or decent work that pays. They are asking the provincial government in Alberta to help more. Alberta's premier, Danielle Smith, could start by stopping the price hike on gas that she did on April 1, which was more than the price on pollution.

Mr. Speaker, on March 22 I asked the government to level with Canadians on the true efficacy of the mega programs it announced that fall short on the delivery of real and substantive assistance to all Canadians. I referenced the much-touted Liberal-NDP pharmacare deal reached by the governing coalition. However, when Canadians took a closer look, they saw a scheme that is more smoke and mirrors and that would not actually truly help people. Canadians saw the charade repeat in the not-so-glorious dental deal worked out by the coalition. The problem is that it freezes out most of the middle class and makes seniors wait until age 87 for coverage. So much for how the Liberals and NDP care about Canada's senior citizens. I guess seniors under 87 do not have dental issues. The scheme is also not going over well with Canada's dentists. They have indicated they will not accept the government's proposed fee schedules. Canadians have also seen multiple carbon tax grabs. Another one came into effect on April 1, a real cruel April Fool's Day joke. It is just like all the other carbon taxes, raking in billions but doing little to improve Canada's environment and provide an honest and full rebate to all Canadians, especially small businesses, which were promised $2.5 billion by the government and have yet to receive a single dollar. The government then turned around, after reviewing the polls in Atlantic Canada, and gave a carbon tax holiday to the region, forgetting about the rest of the country, the farmers, the truckers, the increased grocery prices and so on. So much for being concerned about the environment. Also, if the Liberals managed by some miracle to pull out another minority victory in the next election, the respite from the carbon tax grab in Atlantic Canada would disappear quickly. Then there was the equally shady national child care strategy. That wonderful plan has led to a net loss of over 100,000 spaces and created child care deserts, especially in rural areas. Even now, there are constituents in my community asking when the spaces are going to become available. What good is $10-a-day child care if there are no spaces to access? Let us not forget the cannabis policy that backfired and led to the growth of a huge black market and increased crime and welcomed the return of organized crime in the cannabis business. Yes, what has been given much fanfare from the government needs closer examination. The proof is indeed in the pudding, and these policies are severely unappetizing. They are devoid of true benefits to Canadians and are just a bundle of smoke and mirrors. Finally, in responding to my initial question, the parliamentary secretary, and I am glad another individual is joining me this evening, tried to defend the indefensible and took a few shots at me. He stated that I had initially campaigned on most of these policies as a Liberal candidate in the last election, and he said that I begged to be a member of the Liberal caucus when I was removed. This was based on a years-old trumped-up charge against me, presumably to defeat me in the later election. However, that charge was conveniently forgotten and withdrawn by a Crown prosecutor, well before that election was eventually held. I want to tell the parliamentary secretary I certainly did not campaign on many of these dubious policies that came out after the election and are designed to pretend real assistance would be given to all Canadians. No, I did not campaign on mismanagement and hoodwinking, and I am glad not to have rejoined the Liberal caucus. It is one that rallies around misleading policies and deal-making with its NDP partner to retain power. Canadians deserve better.